Er, no, as I said, the real difference between gigabit and 100 Mbps fiber is in the routers (and repeaters, and switches, and the like), not the cables. And it

Er, no, as I said, the real difference between gigabit and 100 Mbps fiber is in the routers (and repeaters, and switches, and the like), not the cables. And it would cost significantly more to implement gigabit than 100 Mbps, and it wouldn't really make sense anyhow until the backbone infrastructure catches up. But if you build out the 100 Mbps network, you can then just upgrade the hardware later on, having already spent the cost on laying the fiber. 100 Mbps fiber to the home is no "pedal car." 100 Mbps is pretty damn fast. Take a look at the global speedtest.net averages: http://www.speedtest.net/global.php http://www.speedtest.net/global.php . Note that even places with high penetration of FTTH, like South Korea and Hong Kong, only have averages for real-world performance a few times higher than, say, the US, which has very little FTTH penetration (the US is at 9.72 Mbps, Hong Kong at 14.18, South Korea at 32.26, and Australia currently at 7.12). Given these sorts of results, gigabit vs. 100 Mbps FTTH will likely make no difference in real-world performance, while gigabit will cost substantially more. And they both use the same fiber; once the backbone infrastructure and hosts are in place to support that kind of bandwidth, you can upgrade from the 100 Mbps to gigabit hardware at that time, rather than spending the money now when the extra bandwidth will go unused.